Every project I've come across that uses an ORM has terrible database design. All columns nullable, missing foreign key indexes, doing things in application code that could easily be done by triggers (fields like created, modified, ...), wrong datatypes (varchar(n) all over the place, just wwwhhhhyyy, floats for money, ...), using sentinel values (this one time, at bandcamp, I came across a datetime field that used a sentinel value and it only worked because of two datetime handling bugs (so two wrongs did make a right) and the server being in the UTC timezone), and the list goes on and on...
I think this happens because ORMs make you treat the database as a dumb datastore and hence the poor schema.
Honestly database schema management doesn't scale particularly well under any framework and i've seen those issues start to crop up in every org once you have enough devs constantly changing the schema. It happens with ORMs and with raw SQL.
When that happens you really really should look into the much maligned no-sql alternatives. Similarly to the hatred ORMs get, no-sql data stores actually have some huge benefits. Especially at the point where db schema maintenance starts to break down. Ie. Who cares if someone adds a new field to the FB Newsfeed object in development when ultimately it's a key-value store fetched with graphQL queries? The only person it'll affect is the developer who added that field, no one else will even notice the new key value object unless they fetch it. There's no way to make SQL work at all at scale (scale in terms of number of devs messing with the schema) but a key-value store with graphQL works really well there.
Small orgs where you're the senior eng and can keep the schema in check on review? Use an ORM to a traditional db, escape hatch to raw SQL when needed, keep a close eye on any schema changes.
Big orgs where there's a tons of teams wanting to change things at high velocity? I have no idea how to make either SQL or ORMs work in these cases. I do know from experience how to make graphQL and a key-value store work well though and that's where the above issues happen in my experience. It's really not an ORM specific issue. I suggest going down the no-sql route in those cases.
NoSQL is even worse, data gets duplicated and then forgotten, so it doesn't get updated correctly, or somebody names a field "mail" and another person names it "email" and so on...
There is zero guarantee that whatever you ask the database for contains anything valid, so your code gets littered with null and undefined checks, and if you ask for example a field "color" what is it going to contain? A hex value? rgb(), rgba(), integer? So you need to check that too.
In my experience NoSQL is even worse, they are literally data dumps (as in garbage dump).
Their MX500 series SSDs were just king of price, performance and reliability. I even installed them in industrial PCs with intense vibrations and large temperature cycles, they're still chugging along like it's nothing.
Agreed, the first gen MX500 with M3CR023 fw proved IMHO to be the second most reliable SATA SSD 2.5" form factor with the Samsung 860 range SSDs (860 Evo / Pro).
Sadly, the MX500 is now difficult to find in western europe. Only lower grade BX500, still quite reliable but not as fast as the MX500 with cache + DRAM.
Had quite a lot of controller issues (become sluggish for periods of time) with the sandisk/WD ones like green/blue and SSD plus.
Huh, I've had the opposite experience with the BX500. Hit a bit hard on them and the SSD drops off the bus. Or fill them up to 80% and witness them crawl to a stop. Dirt cheap drives, but don't ask too much of them.
Oh I never said you wrote it's better, your message is quite clear :)
Just that I would not really compare the two. The BX500 is the only Crucial SSD I've ever had troubles with and kinda eroded my trust in the brand. My >10 years old M4 is still working like a champ, so does my MX200.
DRAM-less SSDs are a plague that is very hard to avoid, as it's never mentioned in the spec sheets.
Fuck it. Let the Americans start another trade war then. This nonsense has been going on long enough, if times need to get tough so be it then, start earlier rather than in 5 years when these misery machines are everywhere and the car arms race is in full effect.
It doesn't matter how much is this repeated by politicians: it's a lie to suggest that the EU does not spend enough for defense.
We spend multitudes of times more than our only realistic threat. And that threat can't even wage war with Ukraine, you expect Russia to be able to fight Poland, yet alone the rest of the European countries?
Also, just a reminder: US servicemen have not been sent to fight a war for European souls since almost a century. Whereas European soldiers are actively deployed even now in the middle East for wars that Washington started.
Please start looking more at facts and less about propaganda. Of course Europe should step up in being more independent defense-wise, but you'd be a fool if you think the US does not enjoy and leverage the current status provides.
> Of course Europe should step up in being more independent defense-wise, but you'd be a fool if you think the US does not enjoy and leverage the current status provides.
> it's a lie to suggest that the EU does not spend enough for defense.
Which is it? Is Europe spending enough, or does American have influence because Europe is still cripplingly dependent on the US?
I wouldn’t argue that the US isn’t abusing that dependence at the moment.
What I would argue is that the US spent 20 years telling Europe to get its act together, and finally in the last 3 years that has started to change, but notably that was years after NATO was publicly declared braindead. So it was pretty irresponsible of the Europeans to leave themselves beholden to the US for so long.
> So it was pretty irresponsible of the Europeans to leave themselves beholden to the US for so long.
> Which is it?
The answer is complex.
Europe's dependence on US is not much on the military front (again, there are no realistic threats in a conventional war that European countries have) as it is on a political and diplomatic one.
Europe is made of 27+ countries that have different foreign policies, goals, and whose word in a war of real defence has never been tested.
Under that situation US is an absolutely critical reference as in times of difficulties even countries with different interests will still realistically rally around US guidance.
You can thus understand why the group of Baltics and Poland are absolutely much more leaning into playing friends with Washington than they are with Brussels.
Europe is absolutely dependent as of now, and likely will be forever for these very reasons, on US.
The answer is complex, but it should never read as "Europe does not have enough weapons or soldiers to defend itself", rather than "Europe is not taking their own defence under its own responsibility".
It is difficult to tell Italians: "stop producing your own rifles, tanks, mines, etc, let's all agree on a single design". It is hard to tell the Portuguese "look, you're gonna deploy two brigades in Estonia for the next 10 years". It is hard to tell the Belgians they have to follow the command of an Austrian in a war fought in Eastern Europe.
Europe is plagued by differences that the common alliance with the US flattens out. Without US, it's a borderline disaster. It's not a matter of money being spent.
> there are no realistic threats in a conventional war that European countries have
You underestimate russia and clearly only glance over war news over past few years, if at all. They are not sending their maximum potential, nor sending their best equipment like tanks, Ukraine is rather a minor operation for them. Its true their conventional warfare capabilities have been damaged to certain extent, in some cases severely but China has stepped up and covered many holes, no reason to think they won't continue testing their equipment further (US did & does the same, its basic realpolitik).
Do you think they ran out of rather modern tanks and thus are sending 60-70 year old models? Far from it, they keep them aside and send on Ukraine the oldest tanks that can still move around, ~100mm cannon on wheels with HEAT rounds works fine even if old. They still didn't introduce mandatory draft because they didn't need to, folks dying in Ukraine now are all volunteers who get a massive signing bonus high enough to buy a flat or some smaller/older house. Their current drone capabilities would decimate any western Europe army in few weeks to the cinder, even Poland is not be completely up to the game, only Ukraine realistically is right now. These days, war is fought with 2 ingredients - drones and enough boots on the ground with nontrivial attrition.
Can they conquer all Europe? Nope, but they could easily take baltics for example. Thus they also subvert via bribes and corrupt exploitable politicians - look at Orban, Fico and failed attempt in Romania. Those countries would not fight them nato or not, they would roll on their back and invite them themselves, in (maybe not vain) hope that their corrupt highly criminal regimes can continue and thrive under new&old rulers in same vein as in Belarus.
Don't underestimate them, they are by far the biggest threat Europe as a whole has, it has been like that for past 100+ years. Their inferiority complex runs deep and western democracies are a direct threat to their typical corrupt dictatorship way of life. 2025 is really not the year to have such misguided & naive ideas.
Also as a proper mafia state they only understand power. Demonstrate you have enough and you will be left alone. Otherwise not so much.
I regularly follow the ISW reports, among other sources, and I'm quite sure I have a comprehensive view of Russia's ability to wage war.
I really struggle to see the logic where Russia could've won this earlier, but is holding back major resources, I don't see the evidence, yet we know that they've lost 1M people between deaths and severe injuries. Those aren't things you recover easily from.
You think that if Europe spend "enough" America would have not influence? You think that Europe would be allowed to spend "enough" but only in Europe companies?
They like to talk about the bad Russians influencing politics and people in Europe, but compared to the Americans they are flies in the wall. This people that is taking decisions now in Europe, finish later working in the Atlantic Council or something like that. That is the root of the European independence problem.
This is a bogus statement. EU countries have met or surpassed defense budget goals, usually the ones that don't have the contracts in progress but the full payouts not done yet since they are still in progress. Percentage of GDP to military spending has been criticized as a bad way to measure how much military spending is done and needed.
Additionally, the European countries are paying for the war while the US is taking that money and the optics of providing certain military supplies. This whole situation is just exploitation of the EU with the benefit of the US' companies.
Only about a third of European defense spending goes to the US. Europes struggles to ramp up production have been an ongoing story for many years now.
There is still about a trillion dollars of NATO defense spending to replace if Europe does not want to be reliant on America. Doable, but spending a third of that on American equipment wouldn’t help matters.
Perhaps if Europeans got an earlier start, instead of ignoring nearly two decades of warnings and a clearly deteriorating security situation, they wouldn’t need to care so much about US policy. Better late than never.
Of course the economist would say that. Of course that a trillion dollars have to be replaced.
Who is that enemy Europe is going to fight? The Russians? Makes not sense at all.
No they did not. Just a handful of countries are spending close to 5% of their GDP on defense, the rest are doing everything in their power to pay as little as possible.
The 5% GDP deadline is 2035. The 2% by 2024 was met. Not even the US spends 5% of their GDP on defense. Again as I've stated, it's been criticized as a bad goal to use this metric. In actuality, people who push the narrative that Europe is being bankrolled by the US will never be satisfied by any percentage.
> Just a handful of countries are spending 5% of their GDP on defense
Have you even read the comment in full before responding? I'm talking about this part of it:
> Percentage of GDP to military spending has been criticized as a bad way to measure how much military spending is done and needed
But since you wouldn't get it anyways:
The "5% of GDP" is a number that US politicians came up with, seemingly out of nowhere, because they figured they want to boost their military industry.
EU countries are already spending that or even more - just look at Ukraine spending by EU countries - but since it's spent on their own domestic defense industry, US politicians don't like it. That's the point.
They don't want us spending 5% of the GDP on defense unless we buy their stuff. So here we are.
The 5% number is fudged, much of the increase over 2% comes from civic infrastructure investment. They’re fluffing the numbers.
Most EU defense spending isn’t on US equipment (only ~35%); I don’t get where the European victim mentality is coming from here - Europe can and is building up its own defense industry.
There’s some Trump nonsense more recently about buy American, but the demands to take security seriously have been going on for nearly 20 years, and have been largely ignored until Ukraine round two.
> I don’t get where the European victim mentality is coming from here
It’s coming from the fact that we’re already in a difficult time with a slowdown in economy and then get bullied into spending the money we could be using to help our own people on new US weapons.
All for Trump to then sign half of Ukraine off to Russia.
So, your argument is that the US wants money no matter if it kills people with cars due to lower safety standards, nor if it gives up on allies and security guarantees the US promised? That just sounds like their greed is what's causing harm.
Ad hominem.
I did not create it to disagree with you specifically, your stance is not that unique, as you can see I've replied to similar positions. However, when you admit the quiet part out loud I feel like you have no rebuttal and are fine with the exploitation in favor of money standpoint, which should bring your other standpoints in question if this is your guiding principle.
A correct statement would be that the Europe didn't want to pay for US equipment for its own defense.
The US has previously discouraged Europe from building out its own defense industry, the current situation is due to that a dovish view of Russia therefore less of a need to spend money on equipment and troops for a land war.
The World Bank and IMF are providing loans to Ukraine, tied to economic reforms as usual (removal of workers protection etc). It’s not like there is an actual dependency on any purported nicety of the US.
Not to mention it's going to be the EU that will partially bear the cost of rebuilding Ukraine after war and Trump will not even let them have a say in how the land should be split.
You can't open the emergency doors while the cabin pressure is higher than outside pressure, if that's what you're worried about. And I think they don't let kids sit at the emergency exit either, because the person sitting there needs to be physically capable to remove the door, which has some weight to it.
No, this is backwards. Fun is trying new things (I think it's evolutionary mechanism that ensure kids are learning by default), and once the thing has been tried, it's not new anymore, so won't be tried again. Best thing we can actually do is to channel that, as OP proposed.
If only we had cheap, multi-use inflatable exit ramps that deflate, fold and stow themselves after use. Which is not a thing, apparently.
This is how so many fires start. Kids are stupid (it's biological, brain hasn't developed, they can't help it). Fire is exciting. Then they go experiment with fire in a place you really shouldnt -> whoops, something burns down because they don't know how aggressive a fire is in real life and how hard it is to put out.
But if you give them the boyscout/camping treatment of having them light a fire so many times it becomes boring, let them play with matches, move burning logs with thick gloves and practice putting out controlled campfires safely it becomes boring, normal, and the excitement goes away.
>and once the thing has been tried, it's not new anymore, so won't be tried again
There must be something in the water here, because kids here do it over and over again, usually ending up they getting hurt/nearly hurt or told to stop.
Well, the way my parents discouraged me from smoking was, they brought a pack of cigarettes home and let me have one. Was awful, never wanted to try it again. That was an important life lesson for me.
The good news is that at least as it pertains to getting rid of physical controls, automakers have largely learned their lesson and are trying to go back as fast as reasonably possible (while also trying to balance recouping the tooling costs from fewer buttons). VW was heavily heavily criticized and is bringing it all back.
I’m confident that if consumer sentiment starts to skew one way regarding electronic door handles, we will also see a reversal. What is unfortunate now is that other automakers are following the lead that Tesla set. Tesla essentially proved one type of electronic door and it is engineered in such a way to be cheap and reliable enough. I’m confident that if engineers are given the space to really innovate and explore ideas, they can find something that is both better mechanically while remaining highly aerodynamic.
> VW was heavily heavily criticized and is bringing it all back.
ID.BUZZ with physical controls would be my dream car, no joke.
Currently the main issues for me are the shitty touch buttons and underpowered heater (it's the same as in the ID.4, which has like 30% of the interior volume of the BUZZ...)
I have no idea, don’t own a Tesla and haven’t been in one that often.
Looks like some models might have the manual door release switch easily accessible in the front but not in the back, about what you’d expect from Tesla.
At least the fact that they have a decent solution shows that there’s no reason this has to be a problem for electric doors.
reply